С. Ф. Леонтьева Теоретическая фонетика английского языка издание второе, ■исправленное и дополненное допущено Министерством просвещения СССР в качества учебник

Вид материала

Учебник

Содержание English consonants as units of the phonological system HI; the labial labio-dental /f/ is opposed to the lin­gual forelingual apical /t/. (2) Lingual vs. pharyngat (glottal) 1)1] the forelingual (apical palato-alveolar) l&$l 4. Position of the Soft Palate English vowels as units of the phonological system Rounded vs. unrounded vowels Pete—pit, beet

Подобный материал:

• М. Я. Блох теоретическая грамматика английского языка допущено Министерством просвещения, 2671kb.
• Г. Г. Почепцов Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка Допущено Министерством, 6142.76kb.
• Н. Ф. Колесницкого Допущено Министерством просвещения СССР в качестве учебник, 9117.6kb.
• В. Д. Аракина издание четвертое, переработанное и дополненное Допущено Министерством, 2717.43kb.
• Головин Е. Сентиментальное бешенство рок-н-ролла. (Второе издание, исправленное и дополненное), 1970.65kb.
• Н. Е. Булыгин дендрология 2-е издание. Переработанное и дополненное допущено Государственным, 5091.23kb.
• A. A. Sankin a course in modern english lexicology second edition revised and Enlarged, 3317.48kb.
• Б. Л. Еремина Второе издание, переработанное и дополненное Рекомендовано Министерством, 7882.78kb.
• В. М. Смолевского Издание 3-е, переработанное и дополненное Допущено Государственным, 5319.11kb.
• А. Г. Кучерена адвокатура второе издание, переработанное и дополненное Допущено Учебно-методическим, 12778.36kb.

fear— fear— near

van— veal— vice-tan deal nice

thigh- Uy— thin— thick­
ly they din Nick

these— they— thine—
tease day nine

beats— tight-
beads night

Commutation Table 4
(other examples can be found by the students).

M N IV Ш № /r/ /i/ /к/ /g/ /о/ /Ь/

perch— pope— pay— pine,— rope— pipe— top— play— pig— pip— pen-
search pose lay shine rouge ripe toy clay gig ping hen

birch— best— bay— bob— babe— bound- bell— bar— bide— bib— be—

search zest lay bosh beige round yell car guide bing he

mad— meal— mike— make— room— mice— mel- mad— met— rum— mouse-
sad zeal like shake rouge rice low— cad get rung house

yellow

wo- west— wife— whine— — wipe— well— wave— wave— — we-

und— zest life shine ripe yell cave gave atth—

sound health

found— feel— fife— fee— roof— foot— • folk— fat— fame— rough— force-
sound zeal life she rouge root yoke cat game rung horse

veal— veal— vice— veer— — vice— veer— van— vet— have— view-
seal zeal lice sheer rice year can get hang bue

thin- think— thaw— thief- ruth- thumb- thaw- throw— throw— hath— third-
sin zinc law shief rouge runt your crow grow hang heard

they— thee— thy— thy- bathe- thy- then- that- these- with— there-
say zee lie shy beige rye yen cat geese wing here

talk— booty— tight— toe— root— talks— tongue- tin— tap— sit— Toby-
sock boozy tight shoe rouge rock young kin gap sing hobby

died— deal— dives— death— rude— doe— door— dan- died— bad— dear-
side zeal lives chef rouge row your cer— guide bang hear

cancer

knock— known- knife— nave— bane— knock- hap— night— name— Ian— near-
sock nose life shave beige rock yap kite game fang hear

peace— sock— sock— base— — sock— sore— city— same— sis— sit—

peas rock slock beige rock your kitty game sing hit

zest— zone— ruse— sest— zoo— zinc— easel— has— zero—

lest shown rouge rest you kink eagle hang hero

look— rule— lice— less— lick— lame— silk— late—

shook rouge rice yes kick game sink bate

ruche— shock— shell— shin— shame- wish— she-
rouge rock yell kin game wing he

rouge— — beige— — — —
Ruhr bake

rack— rid— rag— — roof-
yak kid gag hoof

yap— yes— —

cap guess

coat— sock— calf-
goat song half

bag— gear-
bang hear

tively relevant features, the opposition is double, e.g. /p/ and /d/ differ along the following lines:

/p/ /d/

voiceless fortis voiced lenis labial, bilabial | lingual, forelingual, apical, alveolar

This opposition is really phonemic. It can be proved by the minimal pairs: pie — die, pail — dale, pry — dry. The opposition /b/ — 1Ы

SI

Table 5

Comparative Table of	Phonemes in Different Languages
Language	Conso­nants	Vowels	Total	Language	Conso­nants	Vowels	Total
Russian English French	36 24 17	6 20 15	42 44 32	German Abkhazian Finnish	22 68 13	IS 3 8.	40 71 21

is multiple because these phonemes differ along the following linesi

/b/ /h/

voiced lenis voiceless fortis

labial, bilabial pharyngal

occlusive constrict ive

The phonemic nature of this opposition can be proved by minimal pairs, e.g. be — he, bit — hit, bait — hate.

Soviet phoneticians perform commutation tests on the basis of the knowledge of the grammatical form and the meaning of the words, they apply the semantic method of phoneme identification.

The method of minimal pairs helps to establish the inventory of phonemes, it is one of the two main problems of phonological analy­sis. The other big problem phonologists are confronted with is to define the phonemic status of the sound in the neutral position.

There is one more big problem in phonology — theory of distinc­tive features.

It was originated by N. S. Trubetskoy and developed by such fo­reign scientists as R, Jackobson, C. G. Fant, M. Halle, N. Chomsky, P. Ladefoged, H. Kucbra, G. K. Monroe and many Soviet phonolo­gists, such as L. R. Zinder, G. S. Klychkov, V. Ya. Plotkin, Stepona-vicius and many others.

The taxonomy of differentiator features is being constructed on the basis of objective reality of phonological distinction, which really exist in phonemic classes. Distinctive features are the main, basic elements of variability in different languages. The commutation of meaning and utterance is effected due to these features.

Enriching the theory of distinctive features Prof. G. S. Klychkov introduces a modal feature of "turbulency" to make the hierarchy of consonants more logical. He states that the main question of dis­tinctive theory is the criterion of frequency and the direction of markedness.

There are different opinions on the nature of the phoneme and its
definition. ^v

I. I. A Baudouin de Courteney (1845-1929) defined the phoneme as a psychical image of a sound. He originated the so called "menta-Jist view of the phoneme. In our days Prof. V. Ya. Ptotkin thinks it appropriate to revive the terms "kinema" and "acousma" coined 52

by Baudouin deCourteneyfor the psychic images of articulatory move­ments and their auditory counterparts and blended into "kinakeme" to designate the bilateral psychophonic unit He states that experimen­tal investigations demonstrate the impossibility of accepting the pho­neme as the basic unit in the production and perception of oral speech. Speech production and perception are cerebral activities first and fore­most, while the sound chain is the vehicle for their externalization. Thus phonemes are composed of kinakemes which possess the paradignr-atic, syntagmatic and semantic properties, characteristic of -other phonological units, and are ultimate phonological units. The accept­ance of the kinakeme makes the notion of distinctive phonemic fea­tures redundant in phonemic theory because the kinakeme covers prac­tically the same ground as the notion of "distinctive feature". (G. Fant considers the term "minimal category" or "distinction" much better than "distinctive feature".) V. Ya. Plotkin suggests two dichotomies:

jl. Kinakemic system consists of two sub-systems: vocalic and con_: sonantal, which are not rigidly separated.

2. All kinakemes are divided into two categories: modal and lo-cational.

Modal kinakemes are concerned with the origin of sounds and the vertical dimensions of the vocal tract. (1) Obstructional: a) occlu­sion, b) constriction, (2) Phonal: a) sonority, b) discordance.

Consonantal modal kinakemes determine the mode of obstruc­tion and the acoustic type of sound-tone or noise, their vocalic kina­kemes deal with the height of the vocal tract.

Locational kinakemes: vocalic and consonantal, function on the horizontal plane, activating certain areas along the vocal tract, (1) Articulatory: a) prelinguality, b) postlinguality. (2) Pointal: a) prealveolarity, b) postalveolarity.

"The-phoneme retains its status of the minimal unit of sound in the language system. Its indivisibility should be qualified as inability to be broken up into smaller units of sound." "As for the ultimate pho­nological unit, it is an instrument for the linguistic structuring of extralinguistic substance which might be called prephonic rather than phonic."¹

II. The abstraction^ conception of the phoneme was originated
by Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913), the famous Swiss linguist and
the Danish linguist L. Hjelmsley (1889-1965). It was .advocated by
their pupils in the Copenhagen Linguistic Circle'. The "abstract" view
regards the phoneme independent of the phonetic properties.

III. N. S. Trubetzkoy (1890-1938), L. vBloomfield (1887-1949),
R, Jakobson (1896-1982) viewed the phoneme as the minimal sound
units by which meanings may be differentiated. They stated that the
features of the phoneme involved in the differentiation of words are
called distinctive. They can be found in contrastive sets.

¹ Plotkin V. Ya. Systems of Ultimate Phonological Units // Phonetica, 1976.— P. 82.

53

IV. The physical view on the phoneme was originated by D. Jones
(1881-1967). He defined the phoneme as a "family" of sounds. The
members of the family show phonetic similarity. No member of the
family can occur in the same phonetic context as any other member.

This view was shared by the American scientists B. Bloch and G. Träger. They define the phoneme as a class of phonetically similar sounds, contrasting and mutually exclusive with all similar classes in the language.

V. The problem of the phoneme can be solved on a "populational
basis" (J. A. Perry, 1974), that is on the definition of the phoneme as
a unit of an idiolect (D. Jones, K. Pike), a dialect (L. Bloomfield),
a multidialect — the phoneme is a unit of the English Language as
a whole (G. Trager, H. Smith), or a "supralect" — the phoneme is a
unit of a standard form, by which the dialects and idiolects may be
compared (J.A. Perry),

VI. L. V. Shcherba (1880-1944) was the first to define the phoneme
as a real, independent distinctive unit which manifests itself in the
form of allophones. Prof. V. A. Vassilyev developed Shcherba's theo­
ry and presented a detailed definition of the phoneme in his book
"English Phonetics. A Theoretical Course", where he writes that a
phoneme is a dialectical unity of three aspects: (1) material, real and
objective, (2) abstractional and generalized, (3) functional. It serves
to perform the following functions: (a) constitutive, (b) distinctive
and (c) recognitiye. V. A. Vassilyev states that phoneme is material,
real and objective because it really exists in the material form of
speech sounds, allophones. It is an objective reality, existing inde­
pendently from our will, or intention. It is an abstraction, because we
make it abstract from concrete realizations for classificatory pur­
poses; it functions to make one word or its grammatical form distinct
from the other, it constitutes words and helps to recognize them.

Questions

1. What is phonology? 2. How are phonemes discovered? 3. What is commutation test? 4. What is the difference between phonemes and allophones? How are they represented in writing? 5. How are allo­phones classified? 6. What patterns of phoneme distribution do you know? 7. Speak on the method of discovery of minimal distinctive features. 8. What are the main problems of phonological analysis?

9. What do you know about the history of the phoneme discovery?

10. What is a kinakeme? П. How is the phoneme defined by Soviet
scientists?

Exercises

1. Read aloud the minimal pairs below. Single out the phonemes which are contrasted.

jug—bug led—laid lay—He

judge—budge men—main say—sigh

54

birch—-bird singe—sinned

keen—coin try—Troy bays—buys lied—Lloyd

burn—bone fork—folk fawn—phone fur—foe girl—goal

read—reared lead—leered day—deer pays—peers pace—pierce

pen—pain edge—age

law—low saw—so gnaw—no pause—pose

pearl—pole pursed—post curt—coat perch—poach cursed—coast

red—rared very—vary bed—bared pier—pair dearie—dairy

bay—by days—dies

roars—rose awed—ode called—cold torn—tone

barred—bowed Karl—cowl part—pout art—out no—now

do—doer pear—poor my—mire write—riot bowered—b owed

3, Read these words. Pay attention to the positional allophones of the /1/ pho-

neme.

cleft twice

cleg tweed

ply quiet

please quaver

clerk queer
play

try tree

pry

price

cry

crone

crop

/p/ pea —paw /b/ bee —bark /t/ tea —talk /d/ deep—dope

/k/ key —car /g/ geese —goose /t(7 cheese—chosej /dg/ jet —jar

Щ far —fee /v/ veel —vote /9/ theme—thumb /5/ thee —those;

/п/ пол /п7 пёк /б/ бак /67 бязь /т/ ток /т7 тёк

¹ Gimson А, С,

/к7	Кяхта	/с/
/г/	год	/с1/
/г7	гяур	/з/
/Ц/	цепь	/з7
N	час	/ш/
/Ф/	фунт	/ш'
Op. cit Р.	1S6.

сон

сёл

зол

зять

шёлк

/м/ мак /м7 мять /н/ нос /н7 нёс /л/ лад /л7 лёд

/д/ да /ф¹/ Фёкла /ж/ жар /и/ яр /д¹/ дядя /в/ воз /ж'/ жжёщь /р/ рад] /к/ как /в7 вёз /х/ холм /р7 ряд

Control Tasks

1. Give examples to prove that the following features of the English conso­nants and vowels are distinctive,

orality—nasality 'plosiveness—constrictiveness labial-

voicelessness—voicedness ' ity

tenseness—laxness frontness—backness

*2. Give examples of combinatory allophones of the /r/ phoneme.

*3. What positional aflophones occur as a result of palatalization in the Rus­sian language?

*4. Give examples for 'different types of distribution: (a) complementary, (fa) contrast!ve, (c) free variation.

5. Give examples of: (a) single opposition, (b) double opposition, (c) multiple
   Opposition.
   
6. Give theoretical and practical proofs to explain constitutive, recognitive
   and distinctive functions of phonemes.
   
7. Match the words below to obtain minimal pairs.
   

catch, pip, cheap, sap, he, jail, lap, pair, say, sink, rip, fail, lass, Sam, mink, cap, tear, she, lay, heap, match

^ ENGLISH CONSONANTS AS UNITS OF THE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM

Sounds can function as units of language only if they differ from one another. Mutually distinctive speech sounds are called phonemes. As has been pointed out the main method of establishing phonemes of a given language is the commutation test or discovery of minimal pairs through which the establishment of the phonemic status of each sound is accomplished.

When in a contrastive pair one consonan ;pnoneme is opposed to any other consonant phoneme in at least one position, this pair is called minimal,¹ For example, in the minimal pair pen — Ben the phoneme /p/ is opposed to the phoneme /b/ due to the presence and absence of voice; it is the only distinctive feature of this minimal pair. All the other features of the pair pen — Ben are irrelevant. If there are more than one distinctive feature in a pair, it is called sub-min­imal. For example, the pair treasure — pressure is sub-minimal be­cause the opposition is due to: (1) the presence and absence of voice in the /g — J/ phonemes, (2) forelingual articulation of the /t/ pho­neme and bilabial articulation of the /p/ phoneme. All the other fea-

¹ "Minimal pairs are useful, when found, but not necessarily to be expect­ed, and not essential to the work of analysis." 'ßteason H, A. Op. cit.— P. 280.)

tures are distinctively irrelevant. Minimal pairs occur in identical, sub-minimal in similar environments.

It should be borne in mind that distinctively irrelevant features can be of two types: incidental, which may or may not be present in a phoneme, and such, without which the phoneme can't exist at all. For example, the presence or absence of voice in the word final conso­nants /с, з/ in the Russian рос — роз is a 'genuinely incidental or redundant feature, whereas the forelingual articulation of /t/ and the bilabial articulation of /p/ are relevant differentiatory features. Pal­atalization is phonemically irrelevant, incidental in English and rel­evant in Russian, etc.

The phonological analysis of the system of English consonant pho­nemes helps to establish 24 phonemes:

/p, b, t, d, k, g, f, v, 9, 3, s, z, J\ 5. h, tj, 65, m, n, n, w_t r, j, 1, a¹/

Classificatory principles suggested by Soviet phoneticians provide the basis for the establishment of the following distinctive opposi­tions in the system of consonants of the English language.

I. Work of the Vocal Cords and the Force of Exhalation

Voiceless—fort is vs_t voiced—lenis

/p—b/ pen—Ben /t—d/ ten—den /k—g/ coat—goat

Voiceless — voiced opposition is simultaneously based on for-tis — lenis distinction. It is not so in the Russian language where the voiceless — voiced opposition is based only on the presence or absence of voice. If we compare the English /p, t, k, b, d, g/ and the Russian In, т, к, б, д, г/, we may state that: in the initial position the English /b, d, g/ are weakly voiced, the Russian /б, д, г/ are fully voiced:

book — бук goose — гусь deem — Дима

In English /p, t, k/ in the initial position are aspirated fort is, in Russian /п, т, к/ are unaspirated, therefore in English the /p — b, t — d, k — g/ oppositions are based on breath-force distinction, where­as in Russian, the pairs /n — б, т — д, к — г/ differ due to voice — absence of voice distinction (but not in the final position).

in English

(plead—bleed tip —dip come—gum peach—beach tea —Dee cot —got pat —bat tear—dear cane—gain

¹ /a/ is a "facultative phoneme". Some authors prove its phonemic status
by minimal pairs: witch — which, wine — whine, wear where.

in Russian

пой—бой тал—дал кот—год пей—бей тол—дол кит—гид

2. Active Organ of Speech and the Place of Articulation

This principle of consonant classification provides the basts for the following distinctive oppositions:

(1) Labial vs. lingual

pain — cane bun — ton fame — tame

In these pairs the labial bilabial /p/ is opposed to the lingual back-Hngual velar /k/; the labial bilabial /b/ is opposed to the lingual fore-lingual apical ^ HI; the labial labio-dental /f/ is opposed to the lin­gual forelingual apical /t/.

(2) Lingual vs. pharyngat (glottal)

Tim — him this — hiss foam — home care — hair

In these pairs the lingual forelingual apical /t/ is opposed to the pharyngal /hi; the lingual forelingual apical interdental 1Ы is opposed to the pharyngal /h/; the labial labio-dental /f/ is opposed to the phar­yngal /h/; the lingual backlingual velar Ikl is opposed to the phar­yngal /h/.

Within the group of labial, bilabial may be opposed to labio­dental.

wear — fair mice — vice

In these pairs the bilabial /w/ is opposed to the labio-dental HI; the bilabial /m/ is opposed to the labio-dental /v/.

Within the group of forelingual, apical may be opposed to cacumi­nal.

dim — rim

In this pair the apical forelingual alveolar /d/ is opposed to the cacuminal forelingual alveolar /r/.

Within the group of lingual, forelingual can be opposed to medio-lingual.

tongue — young jet — yet

In these pairs the forelingual (apical alveolar) /t/ is opposed to the mediolingual (palatal) ^ 1)1]

the forelingual (apical palato-alveolar) l&$l is opposed to the me­diolingual (palatal) /j/.

3. Manner of the Production of Noise

This principle of consonant classification provides the basis for the following distinctive oppositions: (1) Occlusive (stops) vs. constictive

59

pine—fine Bern—fern dare —share bat —that bore—thaw bee — thee care—there mine—t hine ca me—lame

In these pairs the occlusive /p, b, d, k, ml are opposed to the con­strictive /f, J¹, S, 9, 1/. (2) Constrictive vs. occlusive-constrictive (affricates)

fare — chair fail — jail work — jerk

In these pairs the constrictive /f, w/ are opposed to the occlusive-constrictive (affricates) /tf, dg/.

"Within the groups of occlusives, or stops, and constrictives, noise consonants may be opposed to sonorants.

(a) occlusive: noise vs. nasal somrants

pine—mine boat — moat tale—nail dead—need kick—king

In these pairs the occlusive noise /p, b, t, d, k/ are opposed to the nasal sonorants /m, n, rj/.

(b) constrictive: noise vs. sonorants

same — lame vain — lane then — when

In these pairs the constrictive noise consonants /s, v, ö/ are op­posed to the constrictive sonor ants /1, w/.

Unicentral constrictive consonants may be opposed to bicentral consrictive consonants.

(c) constrictive unicentral vs. constrictive bicentral

same — shame thine — wine

In these pairs the constrictive unicentral /s, 5/ are opposed to the constrictive bicentral Ц, w/.

Constrictive consonants with a flat narrowing can be opposed to constrictive consonants with a round narrowing.

(d) flat narrowing vs. round narrowing

fame — same vat — sat

In these pairs the constrictive consonants with a flat narrowing /f, v/ are opposed to the constrictive consonants with a round narrow­ing /si.

In all these oppositions only examples with the initially opposed consonant phonemes are given. It does not mean that the pairs of me­dially and finally opposed consonants, that prove their phonemic sta­tus, may not be found.

^ 4. Position of the Soft Palate

This principle of consonant classification provides the basis for the following distinctive oppositions. Oral vs. nasal

pit — pin seek — seen thieve — theme sick — sing 60

In these pairs the oral consonants It, k, v/ are opposed to the na­sal /m, n, ту.

The method of minimal pairs helps to identify 24 consonant pho­nemes in the English language on the basis of such an analysis which demands a recourse to the meaning, or to the distinctive function of the phoneme. V. A. Vassilyey ^г writes that those linguists who reject meaning as external to linguistics think that it is possible to "group the sounds of the language into phonemes even without knowing the meaning of words" as D. Jones put it. V. A. Vassilyev states thai "this belief I. . .] is based on two laws of phonemic and allophonic distri­bution (1) that allophones of different phonemes always occur in the same phonetic context I. . .] and (2) that consequently, the allophones of the same phoneme never occur in the same phonetic context and always occur in different positions [. . .]." From these laws "two con­clusions are deduced: (1) if more or less different speech sounds occur in the same phonetic context, they should be allophones of different phonemes; and (2) if more or less similar speech sounds occur in dif­ferent positions and never occur in the same phonetic context, they are variants of one and the same phoneme [...]. This method is known in modern phonology as the purely distributional methodof identifying the phonemes of a language as items of its phonemic system."

Though the practical application of the purely distributional meth­od is theoretically feasible, there are many difficulties in its use.

The principle which determines the choice of the most suitable method for teaching purposes is called the principle of pedagogical expedience in phonemic analysis.

Questions

1. What is the definition of the phoneme from the viewpoint of distinctive oppositions? 2. What is the difference between minimal and sub-minimal pairs? 3. What features of the phoneme are distinc­tively relevant and distinctively irrelevant? 4. What is the nature of voiced — voiceless opposition in English and in Russian? 5. What distinctive oppositions illustrate the existence of labial, lingual, and pharyngal consonant phonemes? 6. What distinctive oppositions illustrate classificatory subdivisions within the group of labial and lingual consonants? 7. What distinctive oppositions illustrate the existence of occlusive (or stops), constructive, occlusiye-constrictive (or affricated) consonants? 8. What distinctive oppositions illustrate classificatory subdivisions within the groups of occlusive and con-strictive consonants? 9. What distinctive oppositions prove the exist­ence of oral and nasal consonant phonemes? 10. What is the differ­ence between the semantic and purely distributional methods of phonological analysis?

Vassilyev V. A. Op. cit,—P. 160.

61

Exercises

*1. State what classificatory principles can be illustrated by the groups of pairs given below (consonants opposed initially).

pin — bin, pack — back, pie — bye, tie — die

pen — ten, been — dean

pole — coal, bait — gait

fee — we, fell — well

fee — he

sob — rob, seal — real, sole — role, sip ■— rip, sight — right

pity—city, pay — say, pail — sail, pole — sole, peel — seal

pine — mine, debt — net, kick — Nick

fell — well, those — rose, soul — role, sip — rip, sight — right

fell — well, fee — we

fail — sail, fee — see, foot — soot, fat — sat, fell — sell

2/ Read the pairs of words. Pay attention to the presence of aspiration in /p, " t, k/ vs. its absence in /b, d, g/ rather than to voiceless fortis vs. voiced lenis distinction.

(a) cap —cab sent —send

pack —back ton —don caper —labour latter—ladder

leak —league coal —goal decree—degree


62

(b) pee —fee tie —sigh do —zoo

supper—suffer attend—ascend raider—razor

leap —leak park —part rude —ruse

(c) till —chill day —jay share —chair

martyr—marcher murder—merger much —marsh

eat —each lard —large furnisher—furniture

4. thigh—shy Ruth —ruche root —rouge
   save —shave presser—pressure mass—mash
   ruse —rouge
   
5. bad —mad dock—knock rigging—ringing
   arbour—armour eddy—any log -long
   rub —rum bad —ban
   

*4. Read these pairs of words. State which of them represent minimal pairs
and which sub-minimal pairs.

thick —sick zest —lest daily —daisy

bathed —base they —lay Weiler—weather
mouth —mouse marry—measure eel —ease

thigh —shy genre —jar bathe —bail
leasure —ledger

Control Tasks

*1. Sort out the oppositions under the following headings: (a) labial vs. fore-lingual, (b) labial vs. mediolingual, (c) labial vs. backlinguai.

pat —cat wield—yield man —nap

supper—succour wail —Yale coming—cunning
leap —leak seem —seen

*2. State which of the pairs illustrate (a) forelingual vs. mediolingual and (b) forelingual vs. backlingual oppositions.

tame —carae sinner—singer sung—young

less —yes bitter—bicker bat —back

rudder—rugger clue —cue day —gay

drew —due bad —bag rung—young

*3. Sort out the oppositions under the following headings: (a) occlusive vs. constrictfve, (b) constrictive vs. occlusive-constrictive, (c) noise vs. so-norants, (d) unicentral vs. bicentral,
pine —fine work —jerk vain —lane

fare —chair bee —thee came—lame

boat—moat deed—need fame—same

seek —seen thine—wine sick —sing
kick —king

4. State allophonic differences of the /t, k/ phonemes in the initial position due to the influence of the next vowel.

\ W tea, tip, ten, tan, tar, top, tore, tub, took, two, term, tobacco, tale, tie, town, tow, tear, tore

/k/ key, kin, kept, cap, car, cot, core, cut, cork, cool, curb, contain, cake, kite, cow, coy, coal, care

*5. State allophonic differences of:

Л, r, j/ after /p/ in: plan, price, pure;

/r, j, w/ after /t/ in: try, tube, twelve;

/I, r, j, w/ after /k/ in: clean, cream, cue, quite

^ ENGLISH VOWELS AS UNITS OF THE PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM

Classificatory principles suggested by Soviet phoneticians can be illustrated by distinctive oppositions in the system of the follow­ing English vowel phonemes: /i:, i, e, se, a-, d, o:, u, u:, л, а:, зЛ

63

1. Position of the Lips

^ Rounded vs. unrounded vowels:

don — darn pot — part

In these pairs the unrounded vowel phoneme hi is opposed to the rounded hi phoneme.

2. Position of the Tongue

(1) Horizontal movement of the tongue (a) front vs. central

cab—curb bed—bird

%honeme^r (b) back vs. central

pull—perl cart—curt call—curl

(2) Vertical movement of 'the tongue

(a) close (Ugh) vs. mid-open (mid)

bid—bird put—port week—work

Jomvo^i%t ^{dose vowels llt u}'^{lu/ are opposed t0 the}

(b) open (low) vs. mid-open (mid)

lack—lurk bard—bird call—curl

Xenvowei/₃:/

to the h₀lte?i ^Wil^{hin e}f^{ch grou}P ^{which we s}tog^{le out} according
subgroups ^{3nd Vertical move}^nts of the tongue there are

/i" ^Ре^Г0^/1Т!,⁸,п^аГ%^3иЬ(!^{1у1аес1ШЬ1и][1}У^!го^ and front-retracted:

Its' indSendent „h^y 7^nt-' {^1;.^{аз а fr}°nt-retracted vowel phoneme.

of ÄfpaU^heⁿg!°^{S1CalstatuSCan be proved Ь}У ^{the 6XistenCe}

Pete-pit deep-dip beet-bit

and^ck-SrlLf / ^als? Evicted into fully back /u:, o:, W back-adväncS 2 ^' ^a/' T^he ^dependent phonological status о pairs, e™ ^V°^{Wels can be} P^ved by the existence of minimal

bard—bud cart—cut pool—pull

els ^С1?ГтЫ^}1^т1-^й~<°^т <^{or mid}> ^as well as open (or low) yow-are subdivided into vowels of narrow and broad variation. 64

Thus, within the group of high vowels /1:, u:/ belong to the vowel phonemes of narrow variation, and /i, u/ belong to the vowel pho­nemes of broad variation. Their independent phonological status can be proved by the existence of such pairs as:

Pete—pit pool—pull

In these pairs /i:, u:/ are opposed to /i, u/, which belong to the subgroup of high vowels of broad variation.

Within the group of mid-open (or mid) vowels /e, з:/ belong to the phonemes of narrow variation and /a/ belongs to the subgroup of mid vowels of broad variation. The independent phonological status of /e, з:, э/ can be proved by the existence of such pairs as:

pence—sixpence foreword—forward

/'pens/—/'sikspans/ /ifo:w3:d/—/if

Open (or low) vowels are also subdivided into the phonemes of broad variation (/se, a/) and of narrow variation \ht). Their independent phonological status can be proved by the existence of minimal pairs:

bad—bard knot—gnat

3. Degree of Tenseness and the Character of the End of the Vowel

This principle of vowel classification together with the principle of length provide the basis for the following distinctive oppositions:

Tense vs. lax Checked vs. free

eel — ill steel—-still done—darn knit—need
peel —pill seat —sit fun —farm cut -—card

deed—did feet —fit come—calm fit —feed

4. Length

There are long vowel phonemes in English /i:, а, о:, и:, э:/ and short /i, e, ae,¹ л, и, и, э/. But the length of the vowels is .not the only distinctive feature of minimal pairs like: ^ Pete—pit, beet—bit, Bart—bad, etc. In other words, the difference between /i:—i,

■а—л/, etc. is not only quantitative 1

but also qualitative, which is condi- [

tioned by different positions of the bulk

■of the tongue. E.g. in the words bead—bid

not only the length of the vowels /i:, i/

js different but in the /i:/ articulation

the bulk of the tongue occupies a more front and high position,

than in the articulation of A/.

Qualitative difference is the main relevant feature that serves to differentiate long and short vowel phonemes because quantitative

Some authors consider /a/ to be a long phoneme.

3—182